Active Users
Currently 1 user(s) logged on.


Advertisement


Join Our Email List
Email:  
For Email Marketing you can trust


Menu

Make a New Account

Username:

Password:



Forget your username or password?


Red Mass Group on Facebook



About Us
FAQ
How To Format Posts
Email Us
RSS Feed
RMG Store
Fair Use Policy
2010 Tag Standards
2010 Candidate Profiles RMG Mobile Site

Search




Advanced Search


Event Calendar
May 2012
(view month)
S M T W R F S
* * 01 02 03 04 05
06 07 08 09 10 11 12
13 14 15 16 17 18 19
20 21 22 23 24 25 26
27 28 29 30 31 * *
<< (add event) >>

Blog Roll
Mass. Conservatives
Ben Wetmore
Boston Maggie
Conservative's Conscience
The Capitol View Live
Critical Mass
Deval Patrick Watch
FreeRepublic - Massachusetts
Hub Politics
Mass Roots
Miss Kelly
New England Republican
No Looking Backwards
Notes from D.R. Tucker
Peter Porcupine
Save WRKO
Scaling the Hill
South Shore Republican Voice
Worcester Freedom Trail
Moonbats
Blue Mass Group
Berkshires Blog
Chimes at Midnight
Left in Lowell
MA lefty blogs
Progressive Mass.
Quriltai on the Shore
Libertarians
Garrett Quinn
Beacon Hill Institute Blog
Pioneer Institute Blog
Campaign For Liberty
Cato at Liberty
Humble Libertarian
von Mises Blog
Ayn Rand Institue
Young Americans for Liberty
Hyper Local
My Dedham
Dracut Forum
Dracut Musings
Holyoke First
Hub Blog
ShrewsBuried
Talking Stoneham
Universal Hub
View From Plymouth Rock
Eric Dahlberg's Blog
Mass. Media
Conservative's Conscience
The Daily Briefing
Keller @ Large Blog
Ken Pittman
The Lone Republican
Political Intelligence
Pundit Review
Talking Politics
Commonwealth Unbound
Dan Kennedy
Greater Boston
Michael Graham
National
73 Wire
Ace of Spades
Big Hollywood
Daily Beast
Daily Kos
Daily Paul
Flynn Files
Hot Air
Little Green Footballs
National Review
Pardon My English
Reason - Hit & Run
Red State
Sudden Stop
Wonkette


Advertisement


Chasing Rainbows

by: D. R. Tucker

Thu Aug 05, 2010 at 19:06:48 PM EDT


I don't know why, but I can't get Marvin Liebman's voice out of my ear.

Liebman, the veteran conservative activist and close friend of William F. Buckley Jr., generated national headlines in the summer of 1990 when he announced in the pages of National Review that he was gay. He also accused the conservative movement of exploiting homophobia for political gain, and urged the American right to reconsider its skeptical view of the gay rights movement.

Eventually, Liebman washed his hands of the conservative movement, realizing that the "ordered liberty" vision of conservatism could never coexist with gay rights. He died of heart failure in the spring of 1997; perhaps he was literally broken-hearted over his failure to convince social conservatives to embrace libertarianism vis-à-vis the gay rights question.

I hear Liebman's voice every time I read a story about gay marriage, gay adoption, the Don't Ask Don't Tell policy, etc. Now, in the wake of US District Judge Vaughn Walker's ruling striking down California's Proposition 8, Liebman's voice is so loud I can barely hear myself think.

D. R. Tucker :: Chasing Rainbows
I was not in favor of the effort to have the courts invalidate Proposition 8. I felt that the integrity of the ballot initiative process in California should not be compromised, even if it meant maintaining a policy that some might not like.

Yet I always heard Liebman's voice, asking why I was not in favor of justice for same-sex couples, why I couldn't see that Prop. 8 was a blatant violation of the Equal Protection Clause. Liebman's voice asked if I even cared about basic human dignity, basic human rights, basic human fairness.

I did not know how to answer.

Is there a conservative case for same-sex marriage? I've long maintained that the answer is no, that while there is a progressive case, a libertarian case, and even a non-partisan case for same-sex marriage, conservatism's reverence for tradition is so strong that it's not possible for a "novelty" like same-sex marriage to be accepted on the right.

Yet I still hear Liebman in my ear, declaring that conservatism is about more than just tradition. Conservatism, he says, is also about freedom and about justice--and from this standpoint, there is, in fact, a conservative case for according same-sex couples equality under the law.

Does he not have a point?

When I see George Will declare that among younger Americans, being gay is viewed as no different than being left-handed, I hear Liebman cheer. When I read stories about how Americans under the age of 35 embrace the gay rights movement unconditionally, I hear Liebman celebrate. Yet, when I notice conservatives questioning American society's increasing acceptance of gay rights, I hear Liebman cry.

I don't know what's going to happen with this Prop. 8 case. When it makes its way to the US Supreme Court, how will the Justices vote? Will the High Court declare that bans on same-sex marriage cannot withstand Constitutional scrutiny? If so, how will conservatives react?

Again, I don't know. However, despite my misgivings about the lawsuit that led us to this point, I can't get Marvin Liebman's voice out of my ear. In fact, right now, he's yelling, "Let freedom ring, damn it! Let freedom ring!"

Tags: , , , , (All Tags)
Print Friendly View Send As Email

Chasing Rainbows | 46 comments
D.R asks: Is there a conservative case for same sex marriage? (5.00 / 1)
Since you put so much of yourself into the question, I think you deserve an answer, just for the sake of dialogue.

Isn't marriage a conservative thing, in general? I don't relate to it as a libertarian, necessarily, though I have come to understand the conservative position that marriage really is probably the building block of a free society and a very good thing for children, usually.

Which leads me to ask: don't traditional conservatives have more in common with gays who want to be married, especially if they plan to have or adopt children, than they have in common with some of the rest of us who aren't that interested in the institution for ourselves at all? I'd think they'd be making common cause for a stable society.


DR - I wonder about this - 'conservatism's reverence for tradition' (5.00 / 2)
There is in my mind a difference between 'conservative' and 'reactionary'.  The reactionary case is a blind reverence for tradition, and much opposition to same sex marriage is indeed reactionary.  The conservative case considers, goes slow, and pauses to consider ramifications.

I agree with Barbara that the impulse to marry by gay people is in fact a conservative one.

Recently, there was an attempt to create a test case in Kansas by banning abortion.  After listening to activists smugly snipe for decades, "If you don't believe in abortion, don't have one", I replied to their hysteria over the attempt, "If you want to have an abortion, don't move to Kansas".

Gay marriage is similar.  If the issue is a true, bedrock concern in your life, move to a state that bans gay marriage, and offset the people who have moved here in order to become married.

Marriage has always been diferent in different states - age of consent, need for medical tests, waiting periods, degrees of consanguity, etc.  This variation was never considered a civil rights issue - so why not allow the different states to decide this?  Prohibit gay marriage, allow gay marriage, or my personal favorite - remove marriage from the authority of government and return it to the religious authorities, merely requiring a registration of partnership for civic purposes (NOBODY gets married by a state, gay or straight).

The states should be allowed to make their own minds up about this, and overriding the voters with a judicial fiat is wrong.

Yr. Obedient Servant, Peter Porcupine, Republican


[ Parent ]
but the supremacy clause still is in effect (0.00 / 0)
States limit various fine details of marriage, because there is insufficient reason to see those limitations as unconsitutional.  

Example:  Under the second amendment, we have a right to bear arms.  Various states assert limitations to this, by banning certain weapons, age limits etc.  However, banning handguns was found to be unconstitutional because the 2nd amendment has precedence over state law.  At some point, you cross a line where states rights have violated a right that is guarenteed by the constitution.  It has happened many, many times in our history.  This would be no different.  


[ Parent ]
But WHY was that reason seen as insufficient? (0.00 / 0)
If you are 15 in Massachusetts, the state will deny you the right to marry.  Of course, you CAN go to Arkansas and get married there.  If you want to marry RIGHT NOW, you cannot in Vermont, but you can in Maryland because you can go there.  If your home state set a boundary you couldn't meet, you could marry elsewhere.

So why wouldn't the remedy for gay marriage be the same?

Yr. Obedient Servant, Peter Porcupine, Republican


[ Parent ]
Because you're equating age with sexual orientation (5.00 / 1)
When the two are very different.  Limiting marriage based on age is a matter of whether society considers a person old enough to consent to the marriage or not.  A gay person, of course, isn't any less able to consent to a marriage at say, age 20, than a straight person is.

The point of federalism is to respect the various  states unified in our nation, but by maintaining a central authority to oversee pan-state affairs and assure that states are able to regulate and nuance laws without infringing on them at their base.

Thus, if the state wanted to put age or familial restrictions on homosexual marriage, it would be similarly legal in a federalist sense.  

Society has something to gain by preventing 15 year olds or siblings from marrying.  It is becoming increasingly clear that the governement and society have little to gain by continuing to support the anachronistic view of homosexuality.  


[ Parent ]
I agree with Barbara that the impulse to marry by gay people is in fact a conservative one. (0.00 / 0)
Me too. How wonderful. Can't wait to share this with my liberal friends. And the "progressive"ones too. Though for the life of me,.....................  

[ Parent ]
That's awesome ! (0.00 / 0)



"Paula Jones was and is trailer-trash" -SomervilleTom

http://bluemassgroup.com/2012/...


[ Parent ]
I'm with Peter (0.00 / 0)
Get the Government out of marriage.  (Hmm... get the government out of our wallets, and our bedrooms... where have I heard that before?).

Actually - the first local politician I heard give a cogent defense of that position (get the government out of marriage) was.... Paul Loscocco!

Of course, Finneran set us down the divisive "marriage" path by not allowing a vote on civil unions (for which there probably would have been support in the House at the time).

So Peter, I guess you could say overriding the legislators with "leadership fiat" is wrong too.


[ Parent ]
Just make sure... (0.00 / 0)
....that if it's Ok for gay marriage to exist then you HAVE TO support other types of non-traditional marriage in order to be consistent. If you support gay marriage, that's fine, but that also means that you MUST support rights for those who practice polygamy, marriage between siblings, marriage between parents and offspring, marriage between humans and animals, and any other type of marriage.

Whether you like it or not, this is the point of no turning back. If gay marriage supporters will be consistent and stand by ALL TYPES OF MARRIAGE, then I will happily stand by them.

Be careful people. Don't ask for something and then not be prepared for the unintended consequences that come after that.

To quote, "LET FREEDOM RING!"


Polygamy maybe (0.00 / 0)
but there are genetic reasons for not marrying one's close relatives, and of course you have a problem with consent when animals are involved.  

[ Parent ]
Why do you jump to sex??? (0.00 / 0)
Marriage does not equal sex!
People who aren't married have sex!

Get the "Sex First" out of the equation here...
YEESH!


[ Parent ]
Is this a response to me? (0.00 / 0)
I didn't mention sex. I'm just saying here that if some human wants to marry my cat, he can't get the cat to consent.
Sometimes people have little "marriage" ceremonies for their pets. My cat, who is fixed and isn't having sex anyhow, might prefer to "marry" a cute little feline named Penny that he met once; not my decision.  

[ Parent ]
How old is you cat? There is a nice little kitty in my neighborhood ..... (0.00 / 0)


"Paula Jones was and is trailer-trash" -SomervilleTom

http://bluemassgroup.com/2012/...


[ Parent ]
Why did you ask about age? (5.00 / 1)
Are you an agist? You think only YOUNG, fixed cats should be allowed to marry a nice little trophy kitty?

[ Parent ]
Now now now - That's not what I'm saying. I'm just saying mmmmmm umm .... : ) (0.00 / 0)


"Paula Jones was and is trailer-trash" -SomervilleTom

http://bluemassgroup.com/2012/...


[ Parent ]
LOL - I know Alan but what can you do? Some people have a one track mind. (0.00 / 0)


"Paula Jones was and is trailer-trash" -SomervilleTom

http://bluemassgroup.com/2012/...


[ Parent ]
Wonderful. Perfect. Funny too.Thank you. (0.00 / 0)


[ Parent ]
And my response to that is "why?" (0.00 / 0)
It's a knee-jerk reaction of some conservatives to go down the "next thing you know people will marry Fido!" path, but there's no rational basis to it.  

I've never read a bill to legalize same-sex marriage that included the marrying-your-sister clause.  You say that gay marriage proponents 'MUST' support strange and new ways to exchange vows, but you don't back it up with any sort of precedence, bill texts, or even people who are pushing for such a legal status.  

Why don't you come back when you have an actual argument rather than some elementary school-level fearmongering.  


[ Parent ]
Hey Joe, guess what... (0.00 / 0)
....To many people (including myself, and I do not need any "precedence, bill texts, or even people who are pushing for such a legal status" to support that), gay marriage is very much  "strange and new ways to exchange vow[s]".

So instead of calling me an elementary school student, why don't you be consistent. Stop asking me to support something that I don't like without being called to task on your end.

Actually in a way you are right in regards to the elementary school argument: "Don't dish it out unless you are willing to get it back."


[ Parent ]
Good thing this isn't elementary school (0.00 / 0)
because I'm venturing a guess you're nasty at dodgeball.

[ Parent ]
Hmm..... (0.00 / 0)
.....so you're saying your answer is what?

[ Parent ]
My answer (0.00 / 0)
is what it was before.  Why must one accept the presupposition that gay marriage and a plethora of other marriages are indivisible?

[ Parent ]
Because (0.00 / 0)
You are forcing your beliefs on marriage on me, and I am now, because of that, forcing my beliefs on marriage on you. Who the heck are you to deny what I believe marriage to truly be? Since, in your eyes, marriage is Ok between members of the same sex, then marriage, in my eyes, is Ok between multiple members of any sex, any relationship, and maybe even any species.

Who are you to decide what marriage truly is???


[ Parent ]
It's not about defining marriage, but standing by law (0.00 / 0)
Whether or not the state or federal government has the right to say that Jim and Paula can enter into a legal agreement known as marriage, but Jim and Rob are not able to because of their gender alone.

Religous entities are free to ordain whatever type of marriage they fancy, but the government sanctioned marriages, complete with tax breaks, protection by law and other things has a different standard to stand by.  

Besides, if you are so worried about gay marriage being forced upon you, don't go to any gay weddings or get married to a man yourself.

I don't believe in divorce, but it's forced upon me nonetheless because one cannot simply carbon-copy religious law and force people who are a cross section of a global community to accept it.  We avoid such behavior, for the most part, in America.  It's what seperates us from Saudi Arabia and Iran.  


[ Parent ]
Again.... (0.00 / 0)
You are forcing gay marriage on me. Since you are forcing the government to recognize gay marriage, then the government must be forced to recognize multiple partner marriages, sibling marriages, etc. You cannot pick and choose. Let me say that again: YOU CANNOT PICK AND CHOOSE. Gay marriage may be palatable to you, but you must accept polygamy because it is palatable to me. Equal protection under the laws!!!


[ Parent ]
Once again, (0.00 / 0)
why are all those marriages a package deal with gay marriage?

Do you have any sort of reason or evidence to assert such a claim or are you hoping simply by repeating it enough it will become true under it's own volition?


[ Parent ]
You really can't answer the argument can you! (0.00 / 0)
The "package" is, because you are forcing gay marriage on me, all other types of marriage are now Ok! I said it before, you CANNOT PICK AND CHOOSE. If I want to marry 3 women, you must support that because you are forcing gay marriage on me. You changed the argument on the rest of society, so now it is being changed on you and not it is YOUR TURN to deal with that.  

[ Parent ]
ugh... (0.00 / 0)
  The "package" is, because you are forcing gay marriage on me, all other types of marriage are now Ok!

Why?


[ Parent ]
Alan you need to accept polygamy because I have to accept heterosexual marriage (0.00 / 0)
If you don't then you are IN-CON-SIST-ENT!

"It is absurd to divide people into good and bad. People are either charming or tedious."  Oscar Wilde




[ Parent ]
Here's where I always get lost (5.00 / 2)
How is anyone forcing belief in gay marriage on the rest of us who don't have to marry someone of our own sex if we don't want to? Where does the force come in?

I would rather avoid all social issues until November 2, but since the California court ruled, here we are again. So maybe this is my chance to finally understand the arguments, and if they aren't rational on one side or the other, maybe we can move on.


[ Parent ]
Alan here in and in other threads you keep bringing up polygamy (0.00 / 0)
"I want to be able to marry all them is what I'm saying (0.00 / 0)
If I want to marry all 3 of my different partners, I expect everyone to be "tolerant" of that!" Alan Lafleur

Well, why can't I say, with your logic, that I support heterosexual marriage (which of course I do) so therefore why not support polygamy?  Why is it that the burden of me wanted to protect my family the same way that you are afforded somehow leads to or needs to justify polygamy?

Human beings are not born married, nor is the human condition prone to or required to be sustained through marriage.  Marriage is a social convention.  In some cases religious.  Though the latter should have no bearing on the state    

"It is absurd to divide people into good and bad. People are either charming or tedious."  Oscar Wilde




[ Parent ]
sorry for all the typos...I need to check my comments before posting (0.00 / 0)


"It is absurd to divide people into good and bad. People are either charming or tedious."  Oscar Wilde




[ Parent ]
I guess you don't have HBO? (0.00 / 0)
There is a very popular show on called "Big Love" that is about a mutiple marriage.  And how for religious reasons a sect of Mormonism has practiced it for hundreds of years.

They are persecuted too...  But I never hear this argument in favor or against gay marriage.

It is a valid argument?

Will this allow people in Utah to practice their religion, no matter how distasteful it is to some people?

"Don't let me get away with it. Check me out. Don't be the sucker generation." -Ronald Reagan

www.inBrockton.com



[ Parent ]
They do practice such a religion right now (0.00 / 0)
But I'm more concerned about the state-sanctioned marriages.  The propensity of many polygamous societies to practice marriage between old men and underage girls and the fact that many of them are non-consensual makes them far more oppositional to law.  

I think gay marriage is also more palatable to society because it doesn't occur only in a microcosm.  Polygamous marriage is something that occurs in sects in America, whereas the natural state of homosexuality is widespread across races, ages, socio-economic status etc...

Also, it should be noted that polygamy being distasteful is a very European thing.  Indians, Muslim, Africans, and other across the world practice it.  It something that fits some cultures, and not others.  I don't see America ever having to face such a question because it's too culturally outside the normal sphere of society for us.  

If anything, the questions that would be posed to the law would be from an already-married foreign family immigrating to the US and attempting to maintain a polygamous marriage situation rather than from Mormons, IMO.  


[ Parent ]
Wow... (0.00 / 0)
You are actually using the word "normal" in support of gay marriage??? Who are you to decide "normal"? For 2,000 years, "normal" marriage was between one man and one woman. Now it's between one whatever and one whatever. You no longer can use the cultural taboo argument because gay marriage was a cultural taboo before HERE in the United States. But since that is no longer the case apparently, then you can no longer make that argument. BE CON-SIS-TENT!!!!

[ Parent ]
You're acting on the argument that marriage has one explicit definition or purpose. (0.00 / 0)
People get married for a myriad of reasons.  Whether it be for money, or revenge, love or convinience, there is no single monument known as marriage.  You apparently consider, as shown above, polygamy to be abnormal.  Where's your 2,000 years argument there?  

Your definition seems to be somewhere around one man and one woman for whatever reason.

Where's the respect for love or society in that?  

America has far more of a problem in a 50% divorce rate than from teh gayz wanting to get in on the action.  If you really wanted to be a soldier for the institution of marriage, that's where you'd be better of expending your energy.  


[ Parent ]
You're struggling here! (0.00 / 0)
Obviously I don't consider polygamy to be normal, but since you cannot consistently defend gay marriage in terms of normal and abnormal, I will use that argument to show the hypocrisy of gay marriage supporters.

But I must continue here: "society and love"? Since when is RMG a hippie community?

And since "50%" is the divorce rate, then why the hell don't we just get rid of marriage all together! Seriously Joe, is that the best argument you've got?? I expect more from this community.  

(sigh)


[ Parent ]
Yes Alan I agree with you - I wish JoeTS ...... well I wont say it. (0.00 / 0)


"Paula Jones was and is trailer-trash" -SomervilleTom

http://bluemassgroup.com/2012/...


[ Parent ]
I personally love the 2000 year argument. (0.00 / 0)
Though Mitt Romney says 5000 years (though he also believes that the Garden of Eden is in Missouri...)

For 2000 years and thousands prior, slavery was a norm.  Women were property (and still considered such in some countries), societies systematically performed infanticide (especially with female babies), rape was a perk of war...shall I go on?

The point is that society changes, hopefully for the better.  We learn and we grow and protect our own.  

I

"It is absurd to divide people into good and bad. People are either charming or tedious."  Oscar Wilde




[ Parent ]
I DO, I DO! (0.00 / 0)
Have HBO that is. and watch Big Love, which is fascinating, and most viewers are probably rooting for the polygamist family that is standing up for itself against Big Government and Big Church -- while fairly showing the abuses of the more cult-like Mormon polygamists.

Mostly I just think Bill, the husband, is going to have a heart attack soon as he tries to support and give equal attention to all those marriages.  The wives seem to have it pretty nice, sharing chores, babysitting and a kind of sisterhood.


[ Parent ]
Did anyone watch "Cat House" on HBO? Fricken awesome!! (0.00 / 0)


"Paula Jones was and is trailer-trash" -SomervilleTom

http://bluemassgroup.com/2012/...


[ Parent ]
You're missing the obvious (0.00 / 0)
As it pertains to allowing family members to marry.. The unfortunate results of misguiding procreation was the main reason we decided to legally "discourage" the practice. We did not want the genetic tragedies that take place from inbreeding.

You know what a Hapsburg Jaw is I presume, & most of us who served in the military know someone who was a poster child for back water inbreeding.
&
I believe the only aspect of your point that does have merit is that the foundation is being laid for polygamy.

But in reality we're already a polygamous society, as unwed parenting & out of wedlock child birth rates clearly indicate.

Of course 1 look at Crime rates as they relates to Single Parent children again supports the notion that marriage is what's best for children.
&
Of course because Homosexual marriage is relatively new to us, there is not enough data to know one way or the other what the long term results on the child are.  Though I'm inclined to believe being raised by loving parents is the main ingredient to raining a healthy well adjusted child.

& Alan
The beastiality comment is very low brow & I'd avoid it in the future...

     

"When the past no longer illuminates the future, the spirit walks in darkness."
                    Alexis de Tocqueville


[ Parent ]
The beastiality comment is very low brow & I'd avoid it in the future... (0.00 / 0)
I would never marry an animal!

"Paula Jones was and is trailer-trash" -SomervilleTom

http://bluemassgroup.com/2012/...


[ Parent ]
Poor guy - haunted by the ghost of Marvin Liebman (0.00 / 0)
I feel bad for the poor bastid.


"Paula Jones was and is trailer-trash" -SomervilleTom

http://bluemassgroup.com/2012/...


Thank you for this post D R Tucker (0.00 / 0)
And thank you all for the dialogue here, The Vicar was indeed impressed.

So much that I thought I would share this with you

"It is absurd to divide people into good and bad. People are either charming or tedious."  Oscar Wilde




sexy in tights (0.00 / 0)

sexy in tights

sexy in tights

sexy in tights  

Chasing Rainbows | 46 comments

Advertisement

Adverstise here for as low as $60 per week.





Local Feeds 

Stat Counter

 
Red Mass Group is owned and operated by Robert Eno. It is not authorized or paid for by any candidate or committee.
HOME
Powered by: SoapBlox